Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on June 11, 1996 Rejection


Appeal No.: 94-15614
titled Unreleased Chairman: Mr. Lemontey

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
 

ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST CIVIL DIVISION, made the following ruling: 

On the appeal brought by Les Centres Helen Gale, a limited liability company, whose registered office is 22, in the Hat, 33000 Bordeaux, 

to quash a decision of 5 April 1994 by the Court of Appeal of Orleans (Civil Division, 2nd section), in favor of Mr. Lefevre, in his capacity as liquidator of the winding up of Paulette Etourmy, remaining 14 Garden Beaume, 37000 Tours, 

defendant to appeal; 

The plaintiff relies in support of its appeal, the sole means of appeal annexed to this Order; 

THE COURT, under Article L. 131-6, paragraph 2 of the Code of Judicial Organisation in the public hearing on April 16, 1996, which were present: Mr. Lemontey, president, Ancel, reporting judge, Mr. Gregory, Advisor, Mr. Gaunet, General Counsel, Ms. Collet, Clerk of the Chamber; 

On the report of Councillor M. Ancel, the observations of Mr. Hemery, a lawyer of Les Centres Helen Gale, the conclusions of Mr. Gaunet, General Counsel, and after deliberating in accordance with law; 

On the sole ground, taken in its two branches: 

Whereas the company “Les Centres Helen Gale” complains that the judgment (Orleans, April 5, 1994) to be canceled due to the illegal franchise agreement reached with Ms. Etourmy, holding that it was practical to were implemented constitute illegal practice of medicine or pharmacy, without having found, at the expense of the franchisor, none of the elements of these offenses; 

But whereas, without having to see all elements of the offenses of unlawful practice of medicine or pharmacy, the Court of Appeal held that the consent of Ms. Etourmy was determined by the prospect of exercising various practices so-called “alternative medicine” for the implementation of a method of weight loss and rejuvenation combining diet, acupuncture and auriculotherapy;
 

that ‘having noted that these practices were prohibited by law in connection with an activity such as setting up the franchise agreement , it could be inferred that the cause of the contract was illegal; 

She has legally justified its decision; 

FOR THESE REASONS: 

Dismiss the appeal; 

Society condemns Centres Helen Gale, to Mr. Lefevre, in his capacity at the expense and cost of performing the above; 

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on June 11 thousand nine hundred ninety-six.



Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Orleans (Civil Division, 2nd section) 1994-04-05

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 26.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: